Early Buddhism and Mahayana

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
Sherab
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 6:28 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Sherab »

Here is how I see it:

Since no one can give us enlightenment and each of us has to walk to enlightenment ourselves, there is some form of individuality. If we posit that there is a Great Self that we are all part of, then if one part gets enlightened the Great Self should become enlightened at the same time, and that would mean that all of us would get enlightened the next moment or so. Otherwise, we will end up with a Great Self that is part enlightened and part unenlightened and there will be no unity. The question then is whether this form of individuality could be taken as a self. But the whole mess of suffering is due to the clinging to a self. Therefore in clinging to this form of individuality as a self, there is the real danger that it becomes a really problematic obstacle to liberation. My own speculation is that this form of individuality is not the self in same sense that a deluded mind would take it to mean. This is because at the point of enlightenment, this form of individuality is identical to the form of all those who have already achieved enlightenment.

I also believe there is good reason why the Buddha and many enlightened masters had said that the state of enlightenment is one that cannot be described. Here, I understand that they meant cannot be described by any form of language belonging deluded beings. This is because deluded beings, having no idea or experience of what enlightenment is, cannot have any exact terms or labels for what enlightenment is and what the aspects of enlightenment are. When Buddha and enlightened masters communicate their experience to us deluded beings about their enlightenment, they have to use terms that we know of, terms such as ultimate, existent, transcendent, unborn, unsupported, etc. which they know are laden with baggage of meaning that we are used to but are not quite applicable to the enlighten state. But they have no choice but to use them.

For those who have knowledge of quantum physics, you will know how world becomes weirder as you get down into the atomic and sub-atomic scale. I think something similar applies when you get from coarse consciousness to the "consciousness" of an enlighten being.
User avatar
Koji
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Koji »

Sherab wrote:Here is how I see it:

But the whole mess of suffering is due to the clinging to a self.
I don't agree with this. And you would look many years in the nikayas for textual support. The Buddha very specifically says what suffering is. It is the five skandhas which happen to be anâtman. On the same track, the origin of suffering is clinging to the skandhas which are anâtman. The rest of the 4NTs are pretty easy to understand from here. The self is not the problem. Clinging to what is not the self, namely, anâtman, is the problem. The Buddha even said: “That which is suffering is anâtman” (yad duhkham tad anâtman).
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm »

dzogchungpa wrote:
Koji wrote:Right now a hot debate rages in Thailand among Theravadins, between those who assert nirvana is anatta and those who assert nirvana is atta. The atta side appears to be winning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115896892/Cho ... t-Self-181

Regarding Phae Tissadevo's position:
  • The anattā doctrine is only founding in Buddhism because the Buddha realised attā that is different from conditioned dhammas.
It is pretty clear this Sangharāja never studied Samkhya since in fact that is exactly what the Samkhya/Yoga schools maintains, that self or purusha is completely other than consciousness, senses, sense objects and the material body i.e. the twenty four tattvas (prakṛti, buddhi, ahaṃkara, manas, the five organs, five organs of action, the five subtle elements [tanmatras] and the five gross elements).

If an atman is what one wants to find, then there is no better system of finding it than Samkhya/Yoga.

Of course, Buddha was quite familiar with Samkhya, but for some reason did not present it in his teachings.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm »

Koji wrote:
It depends on what one believes he wrote. In the Maha-prajnaparamita-shastra N appears to have affirmed the âtman.
"People who understand the meaning (artha) of the Buddhist doctrine and know the designation (prajñapti [Pali, paññatti]) say that the âtman exists. People who do not understand the meaning of the Buddhist doctrine and do not know the designation say that the âtman does not exist."
This simply means that "the self" exists simply as a designation, not that there is a real atman. A real atman would exist without a designation.
User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by daverupa »

Malcolm wrote:Of course, Buddha was quite familiar with Samkhya, but for some reason did not present it in his teachings.
The Mūlapariyāya Sutta (MN 1) can be seen as a teaching directed to Samkhya adherents.

I'm not certain why the Buddha would have presented Samkhya, but here at least he may have been presenting against it.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8884
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Astus »

As a short reference about previous topics discussing the same idea of "ultimate self in Buddhism":

Not Everything is Impermanent
Zen, Buddhism, and Taoism

And from the Mulapariyaya Sutta:
Uninstructed Run-of-the-Mill Person:

"He perceives Unbinding as Unbinding. Perceiving Unbinding as Unbinding, he conceives things about Unbinding, he conceives things in Unbinding, he conceives things coming out of Unbinding, he conceives Unbinding as 'mine,' he delights in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has not comprehended it, I tell you."

The Trainee:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, let him not conceive things about Unbinding, let him not conceive things in Unbinding, let him not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, let him not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' let him not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? So that he may comprehend it, I tell you."

The Arahant:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because, with the ending of delusion, he is devoid of delusion, I tell you."

The Tathagata:

"He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you."

That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by dzogchungpa »

Malcolm wrote:Of course, Buddha was quite familiar with Samkhya...
Is that definitively established?
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Koji
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Koji »

Malcolm wrote:
dzogchungpa wrote:
Koji wrote:Right now a hot debate rages in Thailand among Theravadins, between those who assert nirvana is anatta and those who assert nirvana is atta. The atta side appears to be winning.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/115896892/Cho ... t-Self-181

Regarding Phae Tissadevo's position:
  • The anattā doctrine is only founding in Buddhism because the Buddha realised attā that is different from conditioned dhammas.
It is pretty clear this Sangharāja never studied Samkhya since in fact that is exactly what the Samkhya/Yoga schools maintains, that self or purusha is completely other than consciousness, senses, sense objects and the material body i.e. the twenty four tattvas (prakṛti, buddhi, ahaṃkara, manas, the five organs, five organs of action, the five subtle elements [tanmatras] and the five gross elements).

If an atman is what one wants to find, then there is no better system of finding it than Samkhya/Yoga.

Of course, Buddha was quite familiar with Samkhya, but for some reason did not present it in his teachings.
According to Pande (Origins of Buddhism) there are no references to the Sânkhya system by name in the Nikâyas, although the terms Sankhâ and Patisankhâna are used (p. 547).
"It appears thus that although Sânkhya might have been a developed philosophy prior to Buddhism, the early Buddhists took but slight notice of it. This goes against the validity of the attempts often made to read profound Sânkhya influence on Buddhism" (Pande, p. 549).
Pande adds,
"On the other hand, the differences between the basic principle of the two systems are prominent" (p. 550).
Pande concludes by saying,
"It appears that Sânkhya influence on Buddhism has been too lightly assumed" (p. 551).
User avatar
Matt J
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2010 2:29 am
Location: Denver, CO

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Matt J »

I think if we are honest, we really don't know what the Buddha actually said/taught or didn't say/taught. Even the Pali sermons weren't compiled until hundreds of years after his death. Like the teachings of Jesus, we can find what we want to find.

However, based on the records we DO have, the Buddha says that his dharma is hard to understand:
I considered: ‘This Dhamma that I have realized is profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced only by the wise.’ But this generation delights in worldliness, takes delight in worldliness, rejoices in worldliness. It is hard for such a generation to see this truth, namely, specific conditionality, dependent origination. And it is hard to see this truth, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all attachments, the destruction of craving, dispassion, cessation, Nibbanna. If I were to teach the Dhamma, others would not understand me, and that would be wearying and troublesome for me.”
~ MV 1.5, S 6.1, M 26.19 from The Island, p. 31. http://forestsanghapublications.org/ass ... Island.pdf

In addition, the Buddha was fairly thorough in his rejection of many kinds of selves: with form and finite, without form and finite, without form and infinite, and without form and infinite. These are all fixations, no matter how subtle.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The self posited here seems to be an infinite, formless self, which the Buddha rejects.

Edit: Post was cut off.
Last edited by Matt J on Tue Sep 24, 2013 10:54 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The world is made of stories, not atoms."
--- Muriel Rukeyser
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm »

Koji wrote:
Pande concludes by saying,
"It appears that Sânkhya influence on Buddhism has been too lightly assumed" (p. 551).
I didn't say that Samkhya was a major influence of Buddhism, did I? No.

What I said was that Buddha was aware, indeed, knowledgable in Samkhya since it was the system taught by Arāda.

Aśvaghoṣa clearly describes Arāda as being a follower of Kaplila, and gives an account of the basics of the Samkhya system in Canto 12 (truly required reading for everyone participating in this discussion).

So, frankly, I think Aśvaghoṣa is a more reliable source than Pande, don't you, Ardent?

M
User avatar
daverupa
Posts: 447
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:52 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by daverupa »

Matt J wrote:I think if we are honest, we really don't know what the Buddha actually said/taught or didn't say/taught. Even the Pali sermons weren't compiled until hundreds of years after his death. Like the teachings of Jesus, we can find what we want to find.
I think this misrepresents things by quite a large margin, but this may be quite tangential to the OP. If nothing else, I think we are able to say something about what the Buddha did and did not say (I find the similarities between the Nikayas and the Agamas - & other related pedantic reconstructions - quite encouraging), and we can compare this to e.g. (proto-)Samkhya.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Wayfarer »

I agree. I think there is a remarkable consistency in the 'early' Buddhist texts, even given what is now known about the way they were redacted over a long period of time and that the basic message still comes through loud and clear.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
Koji
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Koji »

Malcolm wrote:
Koji wrote:
Pande concludes by saying,
"It appears that Sânkhya influence on Buddhism has been too lightly assumed" (p. 551).
I didn't say that Samkhya was a major influence of Buddhism, did I? No.

What I said was that Buddha was aware, indeed, knowledgable in Samkhya since it was the system taught by Arāda.

Aśvaghoṣa clearly describes Aśvaghoṣa as being a follower of Kaplila, and gives an account of the basics of the Samkhya system in Canto 12 (truly required reading for everyone participating in this discussion).

So, frankly, I think Aśvaghoṣa is a more reliable source than Pande, don't you, Ardent?

M

In another source such as The Lalitavistara Sutra, it makes no mention of Arada Kalama as having any connection with Sankhya. The question then becomes which source is more reliable, the B-carita, a great poem (mahâkâvya), or the Lalitavistara Sutra?

There is not a whole lot of evidence to support the claim that Sankhya had an influence on Buddhism.
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8884
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Astus »

The Buddha rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates, and some assumed this is somehow related to Samkhya (note 8 for MN 22). Although I don't think it really matters whether Samkhya was known or not, as their views don't fit the Buddha's teachings anyway.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 5150
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: AU

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Wayfarer »

From what I recall, the significance of the Samkhya was that nearly all Indian schools adopted their terminology and scholarly methods without necessarily subscribing to their philosophy. I think that is noted in the beginning of Dreyfus' book Recognizing Reality, from memory.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi
User avatar
Koji
Posts: 122
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 1:26 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Koji »

Astus wrote:The Buddha rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates, and some assumed this is somehow related to Samkhya (note 8 for MN 22). Although I don't think it really matters whether Samkhya was known or not, as their views don't fit the Buddha's teachings anyway.
There is no passage in the nikayas that states, unambiguously, the Buddha "rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates." To assert such is also to assert there is nothing outside or beyond the five murderous aggregates (S.iii.114) which also happen to be Mara the killer (S.iii.189). Neither the Buddha nor his disciples identified their self with the aggregates anymore then they might identify their self with a burning pile of grass, twigs, branches and foliage.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Malcolm »

Koji wrote:
Astus wrote:The Buddha rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates, and some assumed this is somehow related to Samkhya (note 8 for MN 22). Although I don't think it really matters whether Samkhya was known or not, as their views don't fit the Buddha's teachings anyway.
There is no passage in the nikayas that states, unambiguously, the Buddha "rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates." To assert such is also to assert there is nothing outside or beyond the five murderous aggregates (S.iii.114) which also happen to be Mara the killer (S.iii.189). Neither the Buddha nor his disciples identified their self with the aggregates anymore then they might identify their self with a burning pile of grass, twigs, branches and foliage.

Hi Ardent:

Isn't boring to rehash arguments we had on AOL?

Vasubandhu (cf. Poussin/Pruden) quotes several sources from the Agamas having stated his thesis at the outset:
  • "There is neither direct perception nor inference of a soul (atman) independent of the skandhas. We know then that a real soul does not exist."
He then cites his authorities such as the Bimbisāra sūtra:
  • "A stupid ignorant Pṛthagjana becomes attached to words, and he imagines there is a self; but there is no self nor things pertaining to a self, but only past, present and future painful dharmas".
He cites another, also cited in the Sūtrālaṃkara:
  • "Five calamities proceed from the belief in a soul(atman): one creates a theory of a soul, of a being, of a vital principle, one is not distinguished from heterodox teachers...: etc.
Even the tathāgatagarbha sūtras take great pains to differentiate their "atman" from the atman posited by Pudgalavadins and Hindus because the tatāgatagarbha is merely a gloss for dharmatā.

For example, Ārya-tathāgatagarbha-nāma-mahāyāna-sūtra states:
  • Whether or not that dharmatā of dharmas produces tathāgatas, these sentient beings always contain tathāgatagarbha.
Now, depending on what you understand dharmatā to mean, then you will understand this in that light. But since there can be no dharmatā without dharmas, it is ludicrous to say this if this tathagātagarbha is other than the aggregates it is also the nature of the aggregates.

Personally, my impression of the main message of the tathagatagarbha sutras is that people should not feel awakening is beyond their capacity. For example, is how this passage from the Tathāgatagarbha sūtra reads:
  • "Sons of a good family, in the same way all sentient beings are without protection, are tormented with the sufferings of samsara, abiding in a house without a protector, the place of birth in the world. Now, the family of tathagatas exists in all sentient beings, but those it exists in them, those sentient being do not comprehend this.

    Suns of a good family, because the Tathāgata do not malign sentient being themselves, sons of good family, you yourselves must not be disheartened, and have firm diligence! There will come a time when the Tathāgata enters into you and you will enter into the ranks of the bodhisattvas and will not be called "sentient beings". Further, when you have entered the ranks of the buddhas, you will not be called "bodhisattvas".
And:
  • It was taught, "Sentient beings who do not understand dharmatā,
    do not generate the thought of 'I am inferior'!"
    You must set out with firm diligence,
    your own body will become a victor without long delay.
    Once one has obtained the heart of awakening,
    one will be able to liberate 10,000,000,000 creatures.
User avatar
Vidyaraja
Posts: 163
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:48 am

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Vidyaraja »

Man, it is a real shame for Buddhist philosophy and soteriology if the no-Self doctrine is the actual doctrinal position as its supporters maintain for, if such is truly the case, then Buddhism is a false doctrine. Though at least it would prove that even false doctrines can produce realized sages under the right conditions (such as Dolpopa or those Thai figures who equate nibbana and atta.)
User avatar
Rinchen Dorje
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2011 5:42 pm

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Rinchen Dorje »

Vidyaraja,
if?? page after page of textual citations have shown that this is in fact the case. However, this truly does not have to be a bad thing and doesn't make Buddhism a "false doctrine" It actually makes Buddhism quite unique amongst all of the worlds teachings/philosophies. This can be viewed as an opportunity. Now you can let go of one more illusion/mental construct and be that much closer to Realization..thats a good thing, right?
"But if you know how to observe yourself, you will discover your real nature, the primordial state, the state of Guruyoga, and then all will become clear because you will have discovered everything"-Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
Posts: 8884
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Early Buddhism and Mahayana

Post by Astus »

Koji wrote:There is no passage in the nikayas that states, unambiguously, the Buddha "rejected the interpretation that there is a self outside the aggregates." To assert such is also to assert there is nothing outside or beyond the five murderous aggregates (S.iii.114) which also happen to be Mara the killer (S.iii.189). Neither the Buddha nor his disciples identified their self with the aggregates anymore then they might identify their self with a burning pile of grass, twigs, branches and foliage.
Read the note that was linked, read the sutta that states how there are ignorant people who believe that outside the aggregates there is an eternal self. Look at the referred sutta in the note where it states the same again. And there are other works (DN 1, MN 1, MN 11, etc.) pointing out clearly that the Buddha's teaching is different from all the others because it does not assume any self in any way whatsoever. Later tradition also refutes it in many ways, just as it has been done several times by people on this forum.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?

2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.

3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.

4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.


1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Post Reply

Return to “Mahāyāna Buddhism”